Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I found nothing wrong with all the quotes Roy used quoting Stephen Robinson. What struck me as most interesting was the slant of his message as well as the responses by those who responded. Brian Johnston responded with, ” I was so hopeful that Robinson was going to be a promoter of a more compassionate and hopeful view of the atonement. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the same as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Kingdom of God, and the act of building it on the earth (the dream of paradise) is not the same as the Corporation of the President.” My understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that Christ will not let his prophet lead his people astray. After all he can stop anyone’s heart from beating anytime. I feel it is risky to divide the gospel of Christ from the prophet and Christ’s church. Christ will account us doing his will if we follow the prophet. I do expect every member to be challenged on this very issue in the future. We will all have to give an account to God of where our heart is and on the stand we take on each issue we are confronted with. I claim to want to know the truth, my actions will prove if that is true or not, the Spirit will lead us if we let it, That is the real struggle. I for one can’t see how I could distinguish between the gospel of Christ, the Church and His prophet, to me they are all for one, in the Lord. Thanks guys for turning on the light of understanding of StayLDS’s mission. Being an inactive “believer” I probably need more nourisment than this blog offers. I’m sorry for confronting each of your comfort zones with what little zeal I have left. Everyone on the planet, from my point of view has the right to be where ever it is that they are. Sorry it took this long to discover what a mismatch I was for this thread. Quote:Tom Haws said…I think he wanted a community that would be a relief and a support to those LDS who feel their old LDS religious foundations have dissolved, shifted, or snapped underneath them. Or to people who feel their previous LDS perspective is no longer robust and fit enough for the realities of their present life. He wanted a community of people who desired to make a new spiritual meaning for themselves within the LDS Church and religion–people who just wanted to stay if there were any possible place for them in all their non-piccolo awkwardness.
Yes, jb, it was assumed by John, I think, that many of his target audience would be so heterodox as to say, “It’s not what I thought it was, but it is a good church, and I believe perhaps I may be able to come to say in some way that it is even true.”
I’m rambling, so I’ll go ahead and raise my hand as one who says, “Sure, any church would do. But I’m LDS.” “It’s my church too. I’m here to stay. You can love me or hate me; I’m going to do my best to choose love.” “Joseph Smith was a prophet, and hopefully so are we.” “Joseph Smith had a vision of the Highest. Have you?”
The point of all this is that, yes, most of us are, or desire to be, believers. But that may not mean what any given person expects it to mean. We want to respect the leaders of the church and have faith in their innate human goodness, combined with the weight of their responsibilities. And I likewise would want to have respect and faith in the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and the President of the United States.
Aww, man! I’ve talked too much. Now I can’t say anything about helping the poor vs. “sell all and give to the poor”. Maybe later.
Tom thank you, I assume you might be suggesting I just might not be adjusting to this blog, if that’s the case I would be happy to go else where. So if your in charge be good enough spell it out and say so. If this is all about people who have no interest in that golden thread i refered to, I also think I should go else where.
This is Ray. I deleted this entire comment, jeriboy, because discussing something is NOT name-calling and derision and slighting someone else’s faith – and that is exactly what your comment did. Quote:mcarp said…Go look up some of the things Mark E. Peterson (then an apostle) said about blacks never holding the priesthood in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although it isn’t well publicized, there actually were people that left the church after 1978 and cite as one of the signs of the church no longer being true that the priesthood was given to the blacks. The same is true of polygamy back in the early 1900s.
A reporter asked David O. McKay at the dedication of one of the California temples when blacks would receive the priesthood. He responded, not in my life time or yours. I have always wanted to know if the reporter died before blacks received the priesthood.
Quote:Rix said… If I’m not mistaken (and I could be!), I think that IS the policy today. The real question is, as the leadership comes to understand (that’s how I would put it…) that God made gays how they are, what is considered “chaste?” “Sex” only within their committed union — however that is defined?
Gods gives us weakness that we might be made strong. I am a person who has violated the laws of chastity and needs to repent. I have no desire for God to lower his standards for my convenience, I am the one who needs to repent and measure up to his ETERNAL laws.
Quote:Valoel said…My second most likely option, in my personal opinion, is that we are living in an advanced virtual reality, a tangible virtual reality in every sense. It may as well be a dream, but with an important point to it. History may or may not have really happened. I can’t prove it to myself one way or another. This leads to our entire experience being symbolic and with meaning other than the temporal, mundane aspects of daily survival. Under this model, Adam and Eve are a story element in my experience.
Do I sound nutty yet?
Valoel I am setting here partly amused, partly laughing, and partly confused, how bout you just put me out of my misery and tell me if you believe God appeared to Joseph Smith and this church is the restored church. I mean this stayLDS is a fun ride because we are all so different. And i can certainly admit, if anyone’s viewpoint comes across to me as not mainstream LDS, then mine must seem just as fuzzy. I mean have we lost the golden thread that used to run through all our different ways of thinking? That golden thread, being, touched by the spirit and having a testimony of the restoration.
Quote:mcarp said…So, I know it sounds crazy, but I think in 20 years the idea of giving the priesthood to women and homosexuals will not be out of the question.
while I’m not sure General Conference will change in the next 5 years, I think you are going to see more change than you can believe at the local level. It will probably start with consolidated leadership meetings, then a 2.5 hour meeting block. Along with a quicker pace, most of this generation have grown up with gay friends, in households where the mother makes more money than the father or in fatherless homes. That will spread more tolerance for women and homosexuals.
Touchy subject but I will give it a try. If this is not the church of God I can see the church become accepting of gays and their lifestyle, assuming that’s what you meant. If it is the church of God I can see same sex attracted holding the priesthood, holding positions, going to the temple, full fellowship and keeping the laws of chasity just like any other single member.
Quote:Rix said…Your thoughts? Does anybody believe in “reincarnation” in the Hindu sense? Or any other sense?
About 25 years ago I met a guy who was LDS, about like all of us on these threads are LDS. If you can imagine that one paint me a verbal discription. He was able, somehow, in his own mind to reconcile mormonism and reincarnation. By the time he dropped me off he was still in the explaining stage. I had to assume that for him he was content with his reconciliation. And like I told a Jehovah Witness one time, if I think their interpretation of God and the scriptures are different, from their point of view mormonism is just as different.
Quote:wordsleuth said…The Church could do more in this area.
Quote:Jeriboy said…Jesus made the comment, the poor you have with you always. He also showed that even though he was the Son of God with great power, he did not come into the world to change such things. He once told a slave to be a good slave. If Jesus would not right all wrongs, neither can the church. Also we have been told that no matter what happens to us in this life, it will be so wonderful in the next life that the hardships of this one will hardly come to mind. The order of business seems to be, at least for me, get a body, live, enjoy, endure, improve, die, get your reward, live forever. The last one you mentioned, I would be real careful with that one.
Quote:wordsleuth…So Jesus didn’t want to change things like helping the poor–I’m not sure that’s true–or ending slavery, and that means the Church shouldn’t help the poor today? Wait, the Church shouldn’t fight poverty–in your words, “change such things”–but it can put on a full-scale assault when it comes to gay marriage? I’m confused jeriboy. What’s the difference? Jesus isn’t concerned about starving children or slaves, but he’s really concerned that gay couples don’t get legal recognition–really? You also say I should be real careful with the last one I mentioned, what, that the Church can do more for the poor? Is that a dangerous idea?
Wordsleuth, sounds like I may have hit a raw nerve, sure didn’t mean to do that. The first part about helping the poor…your reply very much overstates my intent…no matter how much we ALL do, their will always be the poor…that’s what I meant…as to the gay issue, the church supported prop 8 and I supported the church…last of all ” I would be real careful with that one.”…that’s just my personal (mental/emotional) response to to your willingness to be critical of the church, but, on the real world level, by all means, go for it, I support your right to say what you want, and I hope we both support each others right to an exchange of ideas.
Quote:Bill Atkinson said… Interestingly for myself, I don’t KNOW that President Monson is a prophet, I have faith that he is, I believe that he is, I really like his talks but it seems that I can’t get that burning knowledge of his priesthood from television or print (to be fair, until that time in the arena the same could have been said of my testimony of President Hinkley, I guess I have to be in physical proximity to get the message).
My brother and I discussed the concept of adjusting to a new leader in the LDS church. We both agreed Monson is not as warm and fuzzy as Hinkley, but that given more time his personal qualities will come through and we will be as spiritually addicted to him as we were to Hinkley. And to tide us over we know as most do of Apostolic succession.
Quote:poppyseed said…There is my two cents for the week.
Your two cents worth left a very comforting feeling inside today, thanks.
Quote:Antiquarian said…I have so much more to say, but know only that the place women have been put in by the traditions of the Church is one reason I am on this board. It is the root of my current Spiritual Journey. I want to know my Heavenly Mother and the power that She holds. I want to know what She does for us. I want to know Her purpose so that I can know mine. I want the Church to stop defining divinity as solely the realm of Man. especially when we KNOW it is not! This displacement of womanhood is a spiritual wound that will not heal and as I raise my daughter I see so much I want for her and much of it can’t happen in a church like the LDS is now. I will not raise her nor will my DH to value herself though relationships to men. I will not raise her to submit to her husband as an animal submits to an owner – which is the truth of it currently. I want the blessings of Heaven for her, but not at the cost of her self-worth in this life.
I cry often over this. I feel that the Church has betrayed me and generations of women. I wish daily for a revelation to make things right, but know that it wont come. I trust the Lord, but not the men of the Church.
Last week I talked to my ex-wife for the first time in over thirty years, we both had a wonderful visit. One of the things that made it so good was my frank admission that the only thing that was wrong with my ex-wife was the ignorant turkey she had been married too. Even though that person (me) has changed, it’s the kind of evolution I believe in. I believe in the evolution of the church, it’s members and society can change, I believe that God and the church leadership could change faster than we members are prepared for. The leadership has always led the way in encouraging the membership to treat women in an equitable manner, and in The Proclamation of the Family has put her on an equal footing. God and his leaders can only call, if we as members do not heed the call, he will not force us. Because these changes are so interactive between God, the leadership and man, I’m sure it gets hard to know just who to blame for how long it takes for change to be brought about. The safest bet for me is to trust God and his leaders, that he will not allow them to miss the mark to far. I have told women the best insurance they can have for a good life that includes a man is the ability to pick the right one. God grant me the serenity to change the things I can, to accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference. Author unknown.
Quote:Old-Timer said…I agree, but with the same disclaimer as above – that MANY people all over the world please God, even many who lead other congregations and religions, men and women. I truly do believe that God still is “well pleased” in general with the leadership of the LDS Church, even as I don’t believe the leadership of the Church understands and accomplishes everything perfectly in accordance with the full will of God – and I am positive they would agree with that last part.
I have A LOT of markers in my life that I use to show personal growth. One such marker was when I figured out that other people on the planet were as loved and looked after by God as the LDS. One BYU speaker told how the church’s that formed from the Catholic church, starting with Martin Luther were sent by God for that express purpose, and that that prepared the world for the restoration. I like your cosmopolitan outlook.
Quote:JMB said…JMB 275 said…3. I think there is a tendency to view anti-religion and anti-spirituality sentiments as trendy. It’s not scientifically acceptable to admit the possibility of God, or a spirit, etc. I’d like to see an approach to science where scientists are truly open to all the possibilities despite what is popular or not. In psychology, most scientists don’t seriously consider the possibility that there is a spirit, or soul.
Now be fair JMB, it’s the above I was refering too, not all that other stuff you tossed in. You are the one who wrote the above comment, the reference I made was meant to cover it alone and not the whole universe. But most of those other things are see-able or measurable. The only two that are not is the psychology and cognitive processes, and being christian I beleive that their is a spirit inside the human body that survives death. After death we can still think and talk and learn, science dismisses this because they cannot see the spirit. that’s all I was refering too.
